The driver was in no way morally, ethically or legally right; with that said that bicyclist deserved it.

There is no reason, law or not, why he needed to be in the middle of the lane. If there is some new law that states they can take the whole lane that guy was being no more than troll in doing so to exercise his right and say "hey look at me i can do this".

Actually, riding with traffic is, statistically, the safest place for a cyclist besides a dedicated bike lane. And where else would you suggest he ride? On the sidewalk - where the majority of bike accidents with injuries occur, filled with pedestrians? Way over on the gravelly margin of the lane, where the Accord can sideswipe him? It's a bridge; the lanes are narrow and there's no room for a bike lane. The safest possible place for him is spang in the middle of a lane. He's got plenty of space and drivers are forced to pass him, instead of sideswipe him. Obviously, there can still be problems with that, but if there's no shoulder, bikes should always take a full lane, and that's the law in a lot of places.

Why is he a "troll" for following the signs and taking a full lane in a constricted situation like a bridge? He'd be an idiot to do anything else. Are the Amish just trollin' when they take their buggies out? I realize a lot of people have a snit fit about bikes inconveniencing them and being all uppity and stuff, but they're legal road users with clearly defined rights - one of which is using as much of the lane as they need in a given situation. Obviously, it'd be great if every road had a bike lane, but that's not the case. And just like with emergency vehicles, construction, wildlife, Amish buggies, and road hazards, it's up to you to respond appropriately if something is obstructing the lane, or just travelling slowly in it.

Last edited by Turbio!; 04-06-2012 at 07:52 AM.

IPRO Meat-Director and High Minister of Terror-Grilling

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Man

The Terror Grill: Part restaurant, part amusement attraction, part gladiator arena, all profit.

Do you expect him to levitate over the river? It was a bridge you idiot. Think for 2 seconds before you post and you'll get and answer to your own question.

Oh no, what should I do, I am dealing with a rocket scientist here.... Do humanity a favor, please go ride your bike on that bridge preferably at 3am on a Sunday. Keep in mind that according to the law it's perfectly legal to be right in the middle of the lane.

Originally Posted by MatchStick

I agree. He needs to take that whole lane or he's going to invite people trying to squeeze by two by two.

Or use common sense and walk across because even though it's legal to ride on that bridge it's dangerous....

Do humanity a favor, please go ride your bike on that bridge preferably at 3am on a Sunday. Keep in mind that according to the law it's perfectly legal to be right in the middle of the lane.

And then one would be required to be using lights.

Or use common sense and walk across because even though it's legal to ride on that bridge it's dangerous....

Obviously the rule was created for a reason. If the DOT/etc. wanted to designate that cyclists walk across on the sidewalk, they would have specified that. However, they did not. Therefore, if someone is following the law, then they are not the ones at fault and should not be blamed. It's like saying "well you shouldn't be driving the speed dlimit in the right lane because the other two lanes are going faster".

Love TCL's logic on this. Gripe when cyclists (like many drivers) ignore the rules, gripe when they follow them.

Oh no, what should I do, I am dealing with a rocket scientist here.... Do humanity a favor, please go ride your bike on that bridge preferably at 3am on a Sunday. Keep in mind that according to the law it's perfectly legal to be right in the middle of the lane.

What you're missing here is that the bridge has no shoulder whatsoever, and has very prominent signs telling cyclists to ride on the traffic lanes of the bridge, and to use the whole lane for their safety. So, it is very nice of you to make sure he is in the safest possible location during his 3am Sunday ride. How kind.

Obviously the rule was created for a reason. If the DOT/etc. wanted to designate that cyclists walk across on the sidewalk, they would have specified that. However, they did not. Therefore, if someone is following the law, then they are not the ones at fault and should not be blamed. It's like saying "well you shouldn't be driving the speed dlimit in the right lane because the other two lanes are going faster".

Love TCL's logic on this. Gripe when cyclists (like many drivers) ignore the rules, gripe when they follow them.

By law you can do many things that you shouldn't. It's up to your judgment and common sense not to become a statistic.....

What you're missing here is that the bridge has no shoulder whatsoever, and has very prominent signs telling cyclists to ride on the traffic lanes of the bridge, and to use the whole lane for their safety. So, it is very nice of you to make sure he is in the safest possible location during his 3am Sunday ride. How kind.

I am not missing anything, signs or no signs I would be scared ****less riding in the middle of the lane on a busy bridge playing chicken with cars and buses that are coming up behind me....

He has an LED rear light mounted under the seat.
How do you know if it was on or not?

Well, if the section of video showing the incident from the rear just before impact wasn't deleted from the video (???), we would see if there was an LED light on the bicycle.

But whatever.
Even if he did have a light, the driver of the Accord obviously didn’t see him for some reason of another. Maybe he was looking down the road for a passing route since he seemed quite impatient?
Aggressive and/or distracted teen drivers scare me even when I am in a car.
Either way, he his the guy and thank goodness the (much older than I originally thought -check news video of courtroom performance) bicyclists was not injured.
Nobody here (honestly) wants bicyclists to get hurt, and nobody wants to hit them.
From a car driver point of view, bicyclists scare me because they can appear in the road at very unexpected and dangerous locations and times.

And let’s talk about something else for a second.
Many areas are giving bicyclists more rights on the road because bicycling is seen as being green versus driving a gas powered vehicle (even though most bicyclists are just using the road for a work out ride and not actually going somehwere they would normally drive).
But this video shows all too well that a single bicycle may save one vehicle from being driven this route, but it also is enough of a slowly moving traffic hindrance to cause the vehicles passing a combined amount of wasted fuel that probably offsets any fuel savings by the lone bicyclist.

I say make a determination of what roads are safe to ride on (due to traffic speeds and lane/shoulder width) and designate those as bicycle roads.
Keep them off normal busy traffic roads for the sake of everybody involved.

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

From a car driver point of view, bicyclists scare me because they can appear in the road at very unexpected and dangerous locations and times.

I say make a determination of what roads are safe to ride on (due to traffic speeds and lane/shoulder width) and designate those as bicycle roads.
Keep them off normal busy traffic roads for the sake of everybody involved.

We have bikeways around Austin.
They seem to help, but you do end up with people walking on them which can cause a big problem.

Still, when there is a group on the road I do not mind if they stick together in packs, like motorcycles. It helps with visibility.

Well, if the section of video showing the incident from the rear just before impact wasn't deleted from the video (???), we would see if there was an LED light on the bicycle.

But whatever.
Even if he did have a light, the driver of the Accord obviously didn’t see him for some reason of another. Maybe he was looking down the road for a passing route since he seemed quite impatient?
Aggressive and/or distracted teen drivers scare me even when I am in a car.
Either way, he his the guy and thank goodness the (much older than I originally thought -check news video of courtroom performance) bicyclists was not injured.
Nobody here (honestly) wants bicyclists to get hurt, and nobody wants to hit them.
From a car driver point of view, bicyclists scare me because they can appear in the road at very unexpected and dangerous locations and times.

And let’s talk about something else for a second.
Many areas are giving bicyclists more rights on the road because bicycling is seen as being green versus driving a gas powered vehicle (even though most bicyclists are just using the road for a work out ride and not actually going somehwere they would normally drive).
But this video shows all too well that a single bicycle may save one vehicle from being driven this route, but it also is enough of a slowly moving traffic hindrance to cause the vehicles passing a combined amount of wasted fuel that probably offsets any fuel savings by the lone bicyclist.

I say make a determination of what roads are safe to ride on (due to traffic speeds and lane/shoulder width) and designate those as bicycle roads.
Keep them off normal busy traffic roads for the sake of everybody involved.

But why should the car drivers have any more rights to the roads than cyclists? It is not someones right to drive at the maximum speed limit, so if you have to slow down then do it safely and get on with it. Car drivers always want to point out that their 3000lb vehicle will always win vs a cyclist, but if you are paying attention (and the cyclists isn't riding like a jackass) then there shouldn't even be a contest.

Also what rights are cyclists being given? At least around me it seems that cyclists are just finally having rights enforced. The funny thing to me is that most cyclists would much rather be in a separate bike lane when they are riding but the government doesn't want to spend any money on such things so they get stuck in the road and have to make do instead.

Edit: Just as a side note even though as a cyclist I believe cyclists have every right to be on the road, I certainly would not ride over this bridge either.

Oh no, what should I do, I am dealing with a rocket scientist here.... Do humanity a favor, please go ride your bike on that bridge preferably at 3am on a Sunday. Keep in mind that according to the law it's perfectly legal to be right in the middle of the lane.

Or use common sense and walk across because even though it's legal to ride on that bridge it's dangerous....

Every car driver should walk their car across the bridge because busses are much bigger, and it is dangerous to be in a small car.

I see many cyclists here riding in 45mph double lane roads with no shoulder on either side. People here in Howard county MD can't drive, I'm very surprised I don't hear about things like this. I don't understand cyclists, they will ride in the road like a car yet blow through red lights like there are no rules.

He was going quite slow. Should runners have the same rights; should people be able to run in the lane so long as they deem it necessary?

Man...sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived. - Tenzin Gyatso

My point about people suggesting he walk his bike across a bridge when IF AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS WERE PAYING ATTENTION, AND FOLLOWING THE LAW, cycling across a bridge with a 35 MPH speed limit should be perfectly safe.

My point about people suggesting he walk his bike across a bridge when IF AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS WERE PAYING ATTENTION, AND FOLLOWING THE LAW, cycling across a bridge with a 35 MPH speed limit should be perfectly safe.

If drivers followed the same rules you listed sleeping in the street should be safe.

Man...sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived. - Tenzin Gyatso

I am ashamed of the ignorance displayed by so many car lovers in this thread. Car enthusiasts often pride themselves on their higher than average driving proficiency. All of you people saying the bicyclist is at fault or shares some blame here needs to have the ignorance beat out of them and then re-examined to earn the privilege to drive on the same roads as me.

Folks, it's real simple. Look where you're going, drive defensively, don't drive faster than your eyes can see ahead of you, don't hit other people. If you can't see what's in front of you then hang up the car keys and take the bus or walk.

Our government is way too weak in punishing traffic law violators who crash into others causing property damage, injury and/or death. The punishment should fit the crime. If you assault someone with your vehicle (intentional or otherwise) you should pay dearly for it. Leave the roads to those of us who choose to be attentive, courteous and proficient at driving.

While I applaud the bus driver for stopping the hit & run driver...I will say that bikes are a HUGE pain in the a$$. I live in an area that is VERY popular with bikes...rural and gorgeous. But, being rural, there are lots of roads with 1 lane in each direction and no-passing zones. It is not uncommon to have a bike with 20+ cars lined up behind it. SO frustrating. I know they have a right to be on the raod, but do it smartly. If there is a line of cars behind you, pull over and let them pass. And for God's sake, don't ride 2-3-4 bikes wide.

Our government is way too weak in punishing traffic law violators who crash into others causing property damage, injury and/or death. The punishment should fit the crime. If you assault someone with your vehicle (intentional or otherwise) you should pay dearly for it. Leave the roads to those of us who choose to be attentive, courteous and proficient at driving.

This coupled with the fact that they make it incredibly easy to get a drivers license. I can't imagine what an uproar there would be if people actually had to be challenged to get a license.

Your statement is nonsense. Just because something should be and would be safe doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Man...sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived. - Tenzin Gyatso